Can't bring soda on board anymore

[lmcgrail]

Gotta love the "one week of their lives" sentiment.

 

 

 

We've been on NCL 34 days in the last 2 months. The constant chip-chip-chipping of benefits is becoming deafening. Down to 1 cruise booked on NCL (6 on other lines) in the next year or so. And like so many others, we do NOT carry on soda or water, but that is not the point. The point is that NCL is rapidly becoming a shadow of its former self, and we have been sailing them fairly regularly (around 150 days total) in the last 15 years.

 

 

 

Honestly, enough is enough. If the cheerleaders want to keep looking the other way, then more power to you. Will love to hear the squealing, though, when something that is important to you is pulled out from under you. And with the trend in the cuts/changes/price increases for nothing continue, it likely won't be long.

 

 

^^^^This!

[SeaShark]

No need to be rude and snarky, just because we disagree on something.

Probably not a good idea to assume it's because we disagree. But you know how the business should be run, I'm sure you can live with a bit of disagreement...at least.

[Casino Comp Chick]

WoW!

 

You booked this cruise on the basis that you would save money by lugging soda on board?

 

I don't think that's top of the list for many people when choosing a vacation.

 

Compensation? Seriously?

 

Maybe not your brother Frank's list but I am sure it's on other peoples lists.

[NLH Arizona]

nevermind

Edited July 3, 2016 by NLH Arizona

[abe3]

Yes, and you've posted that same sentiment dozens of times for every item changed over the past 2 years:

 

 

 

I guess people's lives revolve around room service

 

I guess people's lives revolve around Nickelodeon

 

And so on

 

And so on

 

 

 

I guess people's lives revolve around blindly supporting their cruiseline of choice.

 

 

I guess if you don't like it and keep cruising NCL then you are blind.

 

To me I have no problem with this and other changes. Doesn't affect me at all. I like soda, but I can also go a week without it.

 

I am also capable of going to get breakfast and brining it back to my cabin.

 

I am also able to find other things during a cruise for me and my family without having to rely on Nickelodeon.

 

This stuff might affect others because they can't broaden their horizons then maybe they should cruise another line. To me I have no problem with NCL and plan on sailing them in the future. I have always had great vacation value with NCL and will continue since I have multiple cruises booked and find it a great value compared to other lines or land based vacations.

 

 

So best of luck to all who jumps ship to other lines over water and soda.

[SeaShark]

Yep just as much as you know how business should be run, difference is I can take disagreement with a smile.

Right...because I'm the one floating my proposals for how the business should be run...at least.

[NCLfamily]

Maybe not your brother Frank's list but I am sure it's on other peoples lists.

 

 

My CC name really gets to some of you doesn't it?

 

How I wish you were right about the family connection though.

[triptolemus]

nevermind

 

Too late.

Yep just as much as you know how business should be run, difference is I can take disagreement with a smile.

 

lololol!

[Casino Comp Chick]

Easy solution for NCL...

 

Raise the price of the cruise by $50 per person and give each cabin a free 12 pack of water and a free 12 pack of soda.

 

Win-Win. Problem solved.

 

Problem is del rio wants 1000+% markup so your figure becomes 5k

[triptolemus]

Right...because I'm the one floating my proposals for how the business should be run...at least.

 

Eh?

 

Easy solution for NCL...

 

Raise the price of the cruise by $50 per person and give each cabin a free 12 pack of water and a free 12 pack of soda.

 

Win-Win. Problem solved.

[NLH Arizona]

Too late.

 

 

lololol!

I changed my mind and decided to take the high road, not getting into an argument over whose proposal is better or who has done better in business, when neither one of the proposals will be used.

 

It is just unfortunate that some can't have a regular conversation on here while disagreeing without someone getting rude or snarky, but I guess being behind a computer accelerates that. I try very hard not to be negative toward anyone, so I apologize for voicing this opinion.

Edited July 3, 2016 by NLH Arizona

[Boschmann]

I changed my mind and decided to take the high road, not getting into an argument over whose proposal is better or who has done better in business, when neither one of the proposals will be used.

 

It is just unfortunate that some can't have a regular conversation on here while disagreeing without someone getting rude or snarky, but I guess being behind a computer accelerates that. I try very hard not to be negative toward anyone, so I apologize for voicing this opinion.

 

I thought SeaShark's proposal was more of a joke about the UBP.

 

What do you think about my proposal about NCL selling vouchers good for carrying on 12 cans of soda to cover the "security costs"?

[NLH Arizona]

I thought SeaShark's proposal was more of a joke about the UBP.

 

What do you think about my proposal about NCL selling vouchers good for carrying on 12 cans of soda to cover the "security costs"?

Based off his responses, I don't think it was a joke.

 

I like your proposal, as long as it would a mutually benefit to both parties..not too expensive for the passengers, but a revenue stream for NCL, since they lose onboard spending when folks are bringing their own on. IMHO, I don't think it is the security costs (even though it takes more labor and time to scan and deliver) that are really an issue, but since that is their reasoning, if the passengers were required to carry it on themselves, it would solve that issue.

 

I don't know if NCL would re-think the policy, but hopefully they will and will come up with something that is a little more palatable than what it is now.

 

BTW, why don't you email it to Andy Stuart as a suggestion to solve this issue. I think when folks offer a solution, rather than just complaining, their letters are read with more interest from a company.

Edited July 3, 2016 by NLH Arizona

[jaja]

The above post provided the name and position of someone who may be in a position to effect change, or at least forward to others who can. I've decided it might be worthwhile to write to Ms. Ewart to summarize what seem to be the primary complaints about this policy and propose they follow CCL's lead in compromising by lowering the cost of bottled water and allowing limited amounts of canned sodas. Below is what I wrote:

 

Ms. Ewart,

 

My first and only cruise was on the Getaway, which we absolutely loved. The waterfront is a distinctive feature of the NCL ships and along with the less formal freestyle dining concept are the primary reasons I chose the Getaway for our first cruise, and based on our very positive experience there, chose our next to be on the similarly designed Escape, already booked for September 2017. I have every intention on remaining a loyal NCL customer but am concerned NCL’s policy changes could one day drive me to another cruise line, which I sincerely hope doesn’t have to happen.

 

I’m sure you’re aware of the backlash of public opinion due to NCL’s recent Liquor and Beverage Policy change effective on 15 July which prohibits passengers from bringing bottled or canned water or sodas on board. I don’t bring my own bottled water or sodas aboard, so this doesn’t affect me, but I am concerned with the perception this is leaving with your other customers, some of whom have vowed to make their cruises already booked their last with NCL, or are planning to cancel their cruises if the policy isn’t altered before July 15th when it’s implemented.

 

After having read the first 16 of 38 pages (and counting) of the discussion on the subject from the CruiseCritic.com forum thread entitled “Can’t bring soda on board anymore”, I can see there are some valid criticisms and hope NCL would be open to considering these criticisms and are willing to compromise in a way that doesn’t turn away current or future passengers, and provides a better cruise experience for all, myself included. I’m sure NCL values the viewpoints expressed on CruiseCritic.com and would prefer those researching cruises for the first time find NCL presented in a positive light, as I did before deciding on NCL for my first cruise. For that reason I’ve chosen to write to you in an effort to summarize the complaints from 42 pages (and counting) down to the most pertinent, and encourage a compromise in policy I believe will be much better received and accepted by your customers.

 

Carnival Cruise lines implemented a similar but more relaxed change effective July 9th, 2015. Details can be found here: https://help.carnival.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2634/~/liquor-and-beverage-policy-q%26a. I’ve concluded most complaints regarding the NCL change in policy are based on the differences between NCL policy and CCL policy and can be resolved if NCL were willing to relax their policy to be more in line with the CCL policy. Both policies cite the impact to the embarkation process and additional security resources required to screen beverage containers. Both cite alcohol smuggling as one of the reasons such screening is necessary. Here are the differences:

1. CCL recognizes there are those who cannot afford to pay current onboard prices for bottled water and have therefore reduced their price to a more reasonable $3.99 for a 12-pack of purified bottled water.

 

2. CCL recognizes that bottled beverages, not canned, are the primary method used to smuggle alcohol aboard, and therefore limit their ban to bottled beverages. Accordingly, they allow a small quantity of non-alcoholic beverages (sparkling water, sodas, juice, and milk) packaged in cans or cartons to be brought on board, with small quantity considered a maximum of 12 sealed, unopened cans/cartons of 12 ounces or less per person.

 

Please be aware that passenger perceptions thus far are extremely negative due to NCL not making the same concessions as CCL did when making this change. Lack of a similar price decrease in the cost of bottled water leaves passengers no recourse other than to pay unreasonable prices for bottled water, at a minimum of $27.08 for 6 bottles, and up to $70.74 for a 24-pack. Naturally the perception is that NCL places more value in profiting from bottled water sales than reducing the impact this change has to passengers, some of whom cannot afford to pay such high prices. Expectations are that NCL will follow CCL’s lead in reducing bottled water prices to similar, more reasonable prices, to meet the needs of the customer at a reasonable cost. Also, as one poster pointed out, NCL should be prepared for an increase in passengers with gastrointestinal issues brought on by passengers choosing not to pay those prices for water and instead getting water in ports that may not be entirely safe to drink. If such an increase were to occur, that cannot be good for NCL’s reputation, as widespread shipboard illnesses tend to make national news.

 

Polls differ as to which most prefer between Coke and Pepsi, but since those are the two leading cola brands, NCL should probably expect a good number of their customers prefer Coke products over Pepsi products and will not concede to drink Pepsi products for even a week. NCL’s unwillingness to compromise on the canned beverage policy by not allowing even a limited quantity to be brought onboard leaves those who prefer Coke products with no recourse whatsoever if your contractual agreements with Pepsi prohibit sales of Coke products as well. As noted in CCL’s policy, “Bottled beverages are the most common means by which guests attempt to smuggle alcohol on board”. Accordingly they limit their total ban to bottles, not cans. NCL’s failure to make that same distinction and banning cans as well despite their minimal threat of alcohol smuggling seems unjustified and unreasonable. The customer perception is that citing that same concern for both bottled and canned products is merely a pretense to further maximize cost saving by substantially reducing or eliminating entirely the need to screen beverages of all types, except the few who choose to bring bottles of wine aboard. Unwillingness to allow even a limited quantity of canned products, knowing there is no other recourse for passengers who dislike Pepsi products, is viewed as an unjustified disregard for the needs and desires of those passengers.

 

Other changes made over the past few years which were viewed as ultimately decreasing costs to NCL and increasing prices to customers, this profits to NCL, have been seen as “nickel and diming”. This policy change is being similarly rejected as making no concessions or compromise to the customer, while providing a greater potential for NCL profit through decreased screening costs and increased sales of bottled water and sodas. While no single change is likely to drive away repeat customers, their accumulation over time does change the overall cost of a cruise as compared to other cruise lines and may impact your customer base. Your repeat customers are especially aware of the changes that have occurred over time, and it is the accumulation of those changes, this one included, which seems to be the basis of customer threats to cancel after this change was announced. I believe it’s in NCL’s best interests to weigh the risk of losing repeat as well as first-time cruisers with the costs associated with compromising on this policy and making changes as needed before its July 15th implementation.

 

On behalf of all others with similar concerns who are also following the CruiseCritic thread on this topic, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to read this and thank you in advance for any policy changes our concerns may bring about.

 

 

Sandman799

CruiseCritic Member and NCL Customer

 

Unfortunately, I received the following auto-reply: Thank you for contacting Norwegian Cruise Line. Sorry I missed your email but I am out of the office with limited access to email. If you need immediate assistance please email AMoris@ncl.com. Thank you for your continued support..

 

My email was sent on a holiday weekend, so this is completely understandable. I don't know AMoris' position within the company, and don't see this as needing an immediate response, or at least before the weekend is over, so I'll just wait and hope it will be read on Tuesday. I'll post whatever response I get, or lack of one if that turns out to be the case.

 

 

Thanks for writing this..:)..Well written . and ..I do hope you get a reply and will share it with us..;).Thank you .

[peacefulOR]

I changed my mind and decided to take the high road, not getting into an argument over whose proposal is better or who has done better in business, when neither one of the proposals will be used.

 

It is just unfortunate that some can't have a regular conversation on here while disagreeing without someone getting rude or snarky, but I guess being behind a computer accelerates that. I try very hard not to be negative toward anyone, so I apologize for voicing this opinion.

 

I've been following this thread since it's (very recent) beginning. Please DO NOT apologize for disagreeing with personal comments. You've come forth with a compromise that I would support, namely pay the on board price for carried on alternate Canned Non-Alcoholic Beverages and lower the price of bottled water consistent with other cruise lines. And please, let us remember that we don't all have the same strong feelings about this issue but still treat each other with common courtesy. I'm not thrilled that I can't have an occasional Coke Zero on my 16 day TA, but do empathize for those who feel strongly and many who are past their cancellation date, if that would make a difference to them. If we have the time to comment here, let's follow up with e-mails, Facebook etc. to the only ones who can modify this new policy...NCCL.

[NLH Arizona]

I've been following this thread since it's (very recent) beginning. Please DO NOT apologize for disagreeing with personal comments. You've come forth with a compromise that I would support, namely pay the on board price for carried on alternate Canned Non-Alcoholic Beverages and lower the price of bottled water consistent with other cruise lines. And please, let us remember that we don't all have the same strong feelings about this issue but still treat each other with common courtesy. I'm not thrilled that I can't have an occasional Coke Zero on my 16 day TA, but do empathize for those who feel strongly and many who are past their cancellation date, if that would make a difference to them. If we have the time to comment here, let's follow up with e-mails, Facebook etc. to the only ones who can modify this new policy...NCCL.

Thank you.

[spenceblake]

I've been following this thread since it's (very recent) beginning. Please DO NOT apologize for disagreeing with personal comments. You've come forth with a compromise that I would support, namely pay the on board price for carried on alternate Canned Non-Alcoholic Beverages and lower the price of bottled water consistent with other cruise lines. And please, let us remember that we don't all have the same strong feelings about this issue but still treat each other with common courtesy. I'm not thrilled that I can't have an occasional Coke Zero on my 16 day TA, but do empathize for those who feel strongly and many who are past their cancellation date, if that would make a difference to them. If we have the time to comment here, let's follow up with e-mails, Facebook etc. to the only ones who can modify this new policy...NCCL.

The Facebook route is a no go they have deleted my post just as fast as I could click the "Post" button. And all I did was address the issue no foul language etc. I am cruising in three weeks and just learned of this via an email July 2.

[Boschmann]

Based off his responses, I don't think it was a joke.

 

I like your proposal, as long as it would a mutually benefit to both parties..not too expensive for the passengers, but a revenue stream for NCL, since they lose onboard spending when folks are bringing their own on. To be honest, I don't think it is the security costs (even though it takes more labor and time to scan and deliver) that are really an issue, but since that is their reasoning, if the passengers were required to carry it on themselves, it would solve that issue.

 

I don't know if NCL would re-think the policy, but hopefully they will and will come up with something that is a little more palatable than what it is now.

 

After a few more posts I saw it was more serious than in jest.

 

I have to go by what NCL has said - it's a security cost issue. It may be true that it's a revenue centered policy, but I can't see many people changing brands and buying water packages or this being a significant new revenue source. If the price of a "Carry-on drink/water security surcharge" wasn't priced like the water package money grab (i.e. costing 10 times more that the item brought on is worth) I think cruisers would understand. At least it's barely acceptable to me, and a revenue source to NCL that only affects those wanting to purchase it.

[janpo]

Security has nothing to do with their decision to stop allowing onboard drinks carried on. It's revenue the entire way.

 

I don't bring any kind of drinks onboard, but this constant cutting of perks and constant price raises is wrong.

Edited July 3, 2016 by janpo

[richstowe]

Maybe some will. But I'm sure NCL will still sail pretty well full to capacity.

So ? I'm sure you are correct but at what price ?

 

Not including Disney , NCL remained the last of the big brands for us to sail on . Our cruise leaves 2 days after the policy comes into effect and it will be just a minor irritant . The reason we hadn't sailed them before was my perception that they nickle and dime you . And yet this cruise was sooo much cheaper then the competition we said what the hell .

 

So yes our cruise and most other NCL's will sail full but perhaps only with great big discounts . Is their marketing strategy to try and compensate for low prices by abusing passengers after they board ? Seems so . We may sail NCL again if they drop their booking prices sooo low that no matter what trickery they use, we should be just fine .

 

Not a great business model but I hope you pay all and more that you think Norwegian is worth .

Edited July 3, 2016 by richstowe

[NLH Arizona]

After a few more posts I saw it was more serious than in jest.

 

I have to go by what NCL has said - it's a security cost issue. It may be true that it's a revenue centered policy, but I can't see many people changing brands and buying water packages or this being a significant new revenue source. If the price of a "Carry-on drink/water security surcharge" wasn't priced like the water package money grab (i.e. costing 10 times more that the item brought on is worth) I think cruisers would understand. At least it's barely acceptable to me, and a revenue source to NCL that only affects those wanting to purchase it.

It is funny, I've said for some time that I didn't understand why cruise ships allowed folks to bring soda or water on board the ships (you can imagine the response I got to that).

 

It could be a security issue, especially with everything going on in the world, and NCL only wanting to bring items on from known distributors, but my gut says they realized how much revenue they are losing and rightfully so. For all we know, they had plans to reduce the cost of the water and someone jumped the gun and put the new policy on the website before corporate was ready to roll it out (I say this because there was no press release, no universal email, no articles, etc., which there always is when there is a change).

 

I still hope you will send in your proposal.

Edited July 3, 2016 by NLH Arizona

[MissJessicaB]

So ? I'm sure you are correct but at what price ?

 

Not including Disney , NCL remained the last of the big brands for us to sail on . Our cruise leaves 2 days after the policy comes into effect and it will be just a minor irritant . The reason we hadn't sailed them before was my perception that they nickle and dime you . And yet this cruise was sooo much cheaper then the competition we said what the hell .

 

So yes our cruise and most other NCL's will sail full but perhaps only with great big discounts . Is their marketing strategy to try and compensate for low prices by abusing passengers after they board ? Seems so . We may sail NCL again if they drop their booking prices sooo low that no matter what trickery they use, we should be just fine .

 

Not a great business model but I hope you pay all and more that you think Norwegian is worth .

 

 

It's actually a great business model and is seen across a lot of industries. Printers are cheap, but ink is expensive. Clubs are cheap, but drinks are expensive. Flights are cheap but a packet of pretzels are expensive.

 

As Cruise Critic members we are more savvy than the average consumer. Most cruisers who are only taking a cruise every once in a while are looking at the initial price and then then once they are in, NCL starts chipping away to make up their losses.

 

Loyal customers are savvy customers and savvy customers don't like this kinda thing. But 90% of the boat won't be cruise critic members and probably barely know we exist. That's how it works, how the ships are still full and how the shareholders make money.

 

Edit to add:

 

Flip side is that the savvy customers tend to cruise more often and are often the ones booking the suites, the havens and Vibe. We spend quite a bit of money so it's worth not pissing us off.

Edited July 3, 2016 by MissJessicaB

[Boschmann]

It is funny, I've said for some time that I didn't understand why cruise ships allowed folks to bring soda or water on board the ships (you can imagine the response I got to that).

 

It could be a security issue, especially with everything going on in the world, and NCL only wanting to bring items on from known distributors, but my gut says they realized how much revenue they are losing and rightfully so. For all we know, they had plans to reduce the cost of the water and someone jumped the gun and put the new policy on the website before corporate was ready to roll it out (I say this because there was no press release, no universal email, no articles, etc., which there always is when there is a change).

 

I still hope you will send in your proposal.

 

I do not believe for a minute the policy has anything to do with true passenger safety security as I believe NCL wants to blur that distinction. When I used that word I meant the same as in all my previous posts - NCL's contraband "security" preventing alcohol. I too question the spurious nature of how the policy was revealed.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Boschmann

[Tiggertastic]

Wow, worked my way through the 44 pages, mine is a little different. Those with diabetes are advised to not take sugar and ncl don't do slimline/sugar free tonic water to mix with gin. They've always advised me to bring it onboard and now I can't. So I'm going to make a plea to the ship to stock some for my cruise.

[Norm1]

I agree, just discount the damn water and lets be done with this. I am not against a reasonable profit for NCL but right now it is just obscene. Not sure you going to change the pepsi to coke argument as NCL like restaurants/fast food prob get incentives to promote just one brand..